Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Amit Narang vs Aditya Birla Finance Limited & Anr on 25 September, 2024 cites

Maitreya Doshi vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. on 22 September, 2022

14. We also find that the reliance place by the Respondent No. 1 on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maitreya Doshi Vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6613 of 2021 is contextually relevant wherein it has held that: "If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors. Needless to mention, the same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors. If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Page 12 of 19 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 684 of 2024 Debtor, the balance may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co- borrower. However, once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Anuj Jain Interim Resolution ... vs Axis Bank Limited on 26 February, 2020

In support of their contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anuj Jain-Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs Axis Bank Ltd. (2020) 8 SCC 401 which has laid down the fundamental requirements of "disbursement against the consideration for time value of money" for any transaction to become a financial debt. Since the alleged debt did not fall within the definition of the word "Financial Debt" as defined in Section 5(8) of the IBC, it was also submitted that the Respondent No. 1 cannot be looked upon as the Financial Creditor. It was therefore vociferously argued that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have first adjudicated upon the maintainability of the Section 7 petition against the Corporate Debtor before admitting the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 125 - Cited by 93 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Athena Energy Ventures Pvt Ltd on 24 November, 2020

13. The Corporate Debtor having signed multifarious documents in their capacity as "Co-Borrower" including signing of a Demand Promissory Note promising "jointly and severally" to repay the consideration received from the Respondent No.1 with interest cannot now deny the obligations of discharging their liability of repayment of the debt to the Respondent No.1. The Corporate Debtor had also undertaken to indemnify the Respondent No.1 in the event of default under the Facility Agreement and agreed to be a Confirming Party to the Page 11 of 19 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 684 of 2024 Indenture of Mortgage. Given this backdrop, the ground now taken by the Corporate Debtor that no liability can be fastened on it in respect of a loan facility given to Csango as primary borrower lacks merit since it is a well settled legal precept that the liability of a Co-Borrower and a Primary Borrower has equal and similar liabilities under a Common Loan Agreement. It is pertinent to point out that this Tribunal in the matter of State Bank of India Vs Athena Energy Venture Pvt Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 633 of 2020 has held that with the coming into force of Act 26 of 2018, under the amended Section 60(2) and 60(3), CIRP can proceed against the Principal Borrower as well as Guarantor. The said judgment held that IBC has no aversion to simultaneously proceeding against the Corporate Debtor as Principal Debtor and Corporate Guarantor. Therefore, when the Principal Borrower and Guarantor have co-extensive liabilities, we see no reason as to why CIRP proceedings cannot be initiated against a Co-Borrower who has equal and similar liabilities with that of the Primary Borrower under a Facility Agreement which has been jointly signed and executed as in the present factual matrix.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 25 April, 2023

15. The Appellant has however contested the tenability of the Facility Agreement on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. This contention has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority and held to be an irrelevant ground in adjudicating on the admissibility of a Section 7 petition. The Adjudicating Authority has adverted reference to a judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Spicejet limited v/s Credit Suisse AG [2022 SCC online Mad 112] in the matter. We are also of the considered opinion that the liability of a Corporate Debtor cannot be done away merely on the ground of stamping inadequacy in the Facility Agreement. Insufficient stamping is only a technical deficiency which is curable. It has been held by a 7 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Curative Petition (C) No. 44 of 2023 while dealing with a constitution bench decision of 5 Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. Vs Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2024) 6 SCC 1 that non-stamping or improper stamping does not result in the instrument becoming invalid. The effect of not paying duty or paying an inadequate amount renders an instrument inadmissible and not void. Hence, we are of the firm view that admission of Section 7 application cannot be obfuscated by raising specious technical pleas.
Supreme Court of India Cites 229 - Cited by 104 - K Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next